NOTE: The title of this post is sarcastic. If you found this post through a Google search because you’re actually looking for tips on how to exploit desperate young women, you’re a piece of shit, and this post is not for you. Go away, and go fuck yourself.
Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:
Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.
Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!
Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.
I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.
According to AD, all you have to do is to:
Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.
Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:
Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.
The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.
You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.
Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).
And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.
Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..
But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:
Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.
How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located
in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.
Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!
There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.
Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?
Just remember to keep to your budget!
Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.
And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:
Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.
You have hit the jackpot!
Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!
Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.
Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!
Just remember:
They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.
Now that’s a motto to live by!
Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.
Simon invoked the c-word, before tossing in some racism:
Mate you are one deadset sad cunt. It’s no surprise to know you’re Indian.
Cathater broke out the other c-word:
Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.
Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.
Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.
Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:
This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.
Savrola returned to the theme of race:
There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.
Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.
What to do?
Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.
ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …
If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).
We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.
Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.
Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.
Men, the forgotten victims once again.
This post contains:
Women with strong maternal instincts may indeed be usefully and safely (both the child’s safety and hers) employed in babysitting services, especially, but not limited to, if they had siblings that they took care of themselves when at home.
As far as more masculine occupations, vocations and professions, most of the work done is best done by men, and making women more available would simply intrude sexual tension and disruption where it need not be. I think that in a free economy, there may be situations where it may be worth it to the business to risk hiring–or promoting–gifted women in mens’ occupations or professions, but talents, skills, and aptitudes are each, and all, probably far too gender based to assume that qualitiy and reliability won’t decline if women flooded a previously men-only field all at once.
I don’t say that women are only good for sex, but I certainly don’t rule out sex either, both gradual and passive–hostessing– or more overt and explicit–“prostitution”–especially when women are concerned! The Men’s Entertainment palaces are just that–entertainment in ALL forms, both sexual and social, whichever the client(s) are happy to pay for (and tip for)!
Web design? I don’t see why not. women use the internet too, and their girlygabble is no more distressingly foolish or silly than some of the stuff one sees on male-friendly sites–No! NOT Spearhead or the more rational MRAs…
I already said that occupations and professions independent of women’s sexuality could be encrouraged in certain Houses of Entertainment, especiaily if, as may be the case rather often, men who are quite gifted at their work or profession may still be inordinately shy, withdrawn, or even hostile to women in an overtly sexually challenging situation, but would be quite relaxed if his attentions to her could be removed from the overtly sexual and toward more social and informal form of interaction.A lady hostess who is able to talk about his work sympathetically and (more-or-less) intelligently could only help her, could help her employer, and perhaps could help the cause of sound and loving heterosexuality all the way around! I have made repeated references to non-sex work in exchange for security, along with improving her prospects of useful and permanent marriage as well.
As far as the “male-wages breadwinner” model being desirable or not, it was certainly desirable enough to those couples who availed themselves of it. If there are other models, by all means let’ see them–but please don’t say that the homeless and unwed women are “entrepreneurially” exchangining sex for food, in the economy so disgustingly outlined above!
Look at the posts which you feminoids have scribbled against your antifeminist critics! If one wonders about what would cause an otherwise peaceful and easygoing man to explode in a tantrum of fury, one can only speculate on the effects any of your posts would do to a man –especially if spoken in front of his friends–who had the slightest amount of self-respect or self possession. There isn’t the slightest bit of effort on the part of women to understand his point of view, much less to see the enormous amount of hurt, both emotional and sexual, that must have been inflicted upon him by women in the name of gender equality and feminism!
The fact that most–if not all–of us men could never escape from egalitarian slop pushed upon us by your kind of people EVERYWHERE in the past three or four decades or so–horrid women like you manboobzettes were EVERYWHERE: in our workplaces, in our clubs and afterwork gathering places, in our schools and universities, etc makes it much worse!!. Does this justify violence–even deadly force–against women, even smartass ones? NO! Does it play a part in explaining it? And HOW! As usual, you harridan hags provoke a bad scene, and then say all innocence “what did I do? “He just doesn’t want to have a reasonable and adult discussion regarding his future castration…”
I DID mail in a petition for Campaign4Liberty, and enclosed a contribution. You are probably right, I probably could have done more last week against that horrid piece of legislation than I have done. I stand corrected! I got more wrapped up in feminioid inspired controversy (over technology and society, no less) here than I should have done, and, even worse, got involved in it to people who are far too wrapped up in current scientific paradigms for them to be in any position to appreciate my concerns even if my attention here was warranted–and you’re correct zhinxi, it was not! I apologise!
DKM, I’ve been fooling you all along. I’m not really a woman.
I’m a person.
Now do you understand why I want a real grownup job, and the freedom to make my own decisions?
It’s because I’m secretly a person! I hope it all makes sense now.
It is sort of rich to see you cautiously, uncertainly judging my fitness to do the jobs that I’ve already done.
“As far as ‘formalized systems of exchaging sex for security’. SOMEBODY clearly has to, because women obviously can’t do it for themselves. If, after the past four decades, we are relapsing into an almost medieval, if not paleolithic model outlined all too horribly above, then something better has to come along, or at least be rediscovered and adapted to the needs of contemporary people, circumstances, and challenges!
It always comes down to beating people (sorry, women) for their speech with you “libertarian” types, doesn’t it? Amazing proponents of liberty that you are.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But I’d totally understand if you got beaten for it, I mean not like I’m supporting it or nothing, I’d just UNDERSTAND, winky nudgy beaty winky.
For the last ten years I’ve been exchanging non-sex labor for security quite successfully.
But like I said, I’m actually a person, not a woman, so maybe I don’t count.
I know this will probably blow DKM’s tiny little mind, but I am a person AND a woman. At the same time!
Holly P.:
You are a person, and you are also a woman! You, perhaps through good luckl through a capacity for hard work, and skills acquisition, you have avoided the horror spoken about with thousands, perhaps millions, of less fortunate women. You ARE able to fend for yourself in a –more-or-less- man’s world! More power to you. It tells everybody nothing at all about what to do about women who can’t support themselves, much less any children they have, and what to do about them. I agree–leaving them as sexual meat for degenerate cannibals on the streets; underground tunnels and deserted “Obamavilles” becoming all too common is NO answer!
Restoration of some kind of patriarchy is one of the ways that earlier kinds of society dealt with the problems of unwed and onowned women of child breeding age and above. You don’t like it, but you have nothing better, and neither does anyone else!
Prove it. How do you know that I’m less good at being a grad student in history than my male counterparts?
What kind of sociopath do you have to be to even think of saying some of the crap uttered by those fucktards?
If most women are unable to have careers, wouldn’t we have heard about this “horror” by now?
Most women in this country are supporting themselves. Do you go outside? When you go outside, do you notice the other people? Half your cashiers, baristas, bus drivers, and so on ad absurdam are chicks. What do you think they’re doing?
welp. I guess we’ve answered that question.
Um, no, I have a job, and that’s actually working out pretty well for me even if I am unowned.
This is the normal state of affairs for women (including most married ones), seriously. It’s not that weird. Go to the supermarket and stuff; it’ll probably be a woman ringing you up. She’s not some strange specimen of unusual hardiness for having an ordinary job.
. It tells everybody nothing at all about what to do about women who can’t support themselves, much less any children they have, and what to do about them. I agree–leaving them as sexual meat for degenerate cannibals on the streets; underground tunnels and deserted “Obamavilles” becoming all too common is NO answer!
Restoration of some kind of patriarchy is one of the ways that earlier kinds of society dealt with the problems of unwed and onowned women of child breeding age and above. You don’t like it, but you have nothing better, and neither does anyone else
You know, this is such an awesome idea because no men are ever homeless or unable to fend for themselves…
Oh, wait.
You gotta love a guy who thinks that the problem with women engaging in survival sex is that it should be a lot more common.
Meanwhile, I’m ever the more appreciative that the real world affords me my snug little apartment with wood fireplace and streaming Deadliest Catch, as well as a variety of means to insure that any infestations of toads are swiftly and definitively dealt with.
Hell, I’m probably even appreciative of the existence of fuck-dolls, despite (well, rather pointedly because of) my lack of involvement in all things pertaining to same.
DKM said:
“If one wonders about what would cause an otherwise peaceful and easygoing man to explode in a tantrum of fury, one can only speculate on the effects any of your posts would do to a man –especially if spoken in front of his friends–who had the slightest amount of self-respect or self possession.”
I consider myself a male person of action and have been in more than my share of knock-down-drag-out fights.
Never once have I had a “tantrum of fury” because someone said something I didn’t like nor have I ever responded violently (physical violence, not Owly’s dreaded internet violence) toward someone who insulted me, publicly or otherwise.
You want to be a feeble minded caveman with a fragile ego and no spine, go ahead. Don’t try to lump the rest of humanity in with you.
I try to agree with manboobzers (amnboobzettes) about how disgusting the above article is, and no results!
Have a nice day!
So now Meller’s borrowing NWO’s tactic of “sheesh, you guys just jumped on me for nothing” right after advocating sex slavery and beating women.
Poor persecuted snookums.
I just realized I am physically incapable of suffering through Meller’s walls of text. Like, I try to read them, because he’s an idiot and I always enjoy pointing out the failings of asshats, but I just can’t do it. My eyes stop obeying the singles from my brain, and they just go look at something else more interesting. Like mold. Or a wall. Or the carpet.
Mellar, do you ever even leave the house? I was just at the doctor’s office, and nearly every staff person I interacted with, including the doctor, was a woman. They all seemed to be getting along quite nicely, thank you very much, doing their gainful and highly skilled work.
Meller has justified beating women again. This thread has it all.
Actually I think Meller has been using this tactic for a while. Remember his “I’m a DV victim ally! I’m just saying that their abuse is probably their own fault! Why are you manboobzerettatrixes disagreeing with me?”
And being an asshole is my job!
There is no such job anywhere in the world.
Someone’s gotta do it.
Since the job you claim to exist does not, in fact, exist, no no one has to do it.
Elizabeth, I think Monsieur Om Nom means to say that being an asshole is his avocation or hobby–something he does in his spare time because it brings him pleasure or a sense of fulfillment. Of course, this begs the question of whether he has to do it. Wants is probably closer to the truth.
@Viscaria: yeah, DKM tries to present himself as in agreement with us though somehow he keeps ending up in Gor.
It’s weird.
“IF, and this is a reluctant IF, women ARE going to earn a livelihood on their own, the least one can do is provide an environment most conducive to both their cleanliness and to their physical–and medical–safety, some screening of both women–and clientele–with an eye toward both having an enjoyable and satisfying evening together.”
So we’ve just decided that IF women are to reluctantly be allowed to work, sex worker is the only option?
Must really suck to realize that in fact that isn’t women’s only option. Oh noes, the former teenage runaway became a nurse, I become a writer, I’m not sure what Kladle does now but I don’t think it’s sex work, and all of us did in fact turn out to have other options! I know how much you want to take all those other options away, Meller, but it’s not going to happen.
Now go play with your dolls and be quiet.
Why NO, actually. Why would they need to “force” men into giving up their sperm when literally millions of men are willing to do this voluntarily? So women take their pick and sleep with guys they fancy. And guess what? A woman need not be married(here in the US) to bear and support a child by herself with or without child support from the baby daddy!